Thread: Russian Pirate Church formally requests to be an official religion

Digital religion: Russian Pirate Church eyes registration — RT News

From article:

Russian adepts of free web data flow plan to register their own religious organization to battle copyright laws. Adherents of the Kopimi, or Copy Me, movement believe the process of exchanging data is sacred and intend to bring the argument to court.

Activists in five Russian cities: Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan and Khabarovsk will officially apply documents to register a church of their own Monday – so that they could launch an assault on copyright laws that “insult religious feelings of the believers”, the chairman of the Russian Pirate Party Pavel Rassudov told Izvestia.

“The church registration process will take years but adepts of kopimism will have the right to sue the anti-pirate laws,” Rassudov insisted.

The Kopimi community was established by the founders of the Pirate Bay file sharing service and has been officially registered as religion in Sweden.

Kopimism is based on the belief that any information is inherently valuable. According to the dogmas of the new religion, the Internet is sacred while copying and distribution of information is morally justified.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Digital religion: Russian Pirate Church eyes registration — RT News

From article:

Russian adepts of free web data flow plan to register their own religious organization to battle copyright laws. Adherents of the Kopimi, or Copy Me, movement believe the process of exchanging data is sacred and intend to bring the argument to court.

Activists in five Russian cities: Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan and Khabarovsk will officially apply documents to register a church of their own Monday – so that they could launch an assault on copyright laws that “insult religious feelings of the believers”, the chairman of the Russian Pirate Party Pavel Rassudov told Izvestia.

“The church registration process will take years but adepts of kopimism will have the right to sue the anti-pirate laws,” Rassudov insisted.

The Kopimi community was established by the founders of the Pirate Bay file sharing service and has been officially registered as religion in Sweden.

Kopimism is based on the belief that any information is inherently valuable. According to the dogmas of the new religion, the Internet is sacred while copying and distribution of information is morally justified.

As far as I understand Russia isn't massively keen on foreign religions, so this might fall on the restrictions around that. Kopimism might get denied the rights to run its religion....

Very sad to hear that this has reached Russia too. However I don't think Russians will be strongly affected by this as people in the English speaking world.
I've got at least 10 sites censored nowadays, and started using private invitation-only torrent sites instead along with VPN based in another country.
And good luck to the copyright holders trying to get people in the Russian far east who are living on <$1000 per month to pay $$$ for software and entertainment. All they will achieve is to make the pirates cleverer, Open source more popular, or lose customers and goodwill, essentially minimizing their own userbase.

I'll try to bring some clarification to it
First of all it has nothing to with religion of any kind
The key part is this "insult religious feelings of the believers"
This is a quotation from ridiculous law Russian officials have passed, recently. The law basically allows people to do virtually anything as long as they can prove that it's related to their religious believes (punishments are severe: up to 500000 rubles in fines and up to 3 years in prison) - Закон о наказании за оскорбление чувств верующих подписан президентом |

This law has been passed as a reaction to "Pussy Riot" actions (the law is very stupid I'd say)
As consequences after passing the law many young Russian who oppose it started registering all kinds of religions and churches, so they can do whatever they want, because otherwise it would be "insulting religious feelings of the believers"
Here is an example of such "churches" -
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Lenta.ru: Из жизни: События: Церковь Летающего макаронного монстра зарегистрировалась в
http://www.rpcmp.ru/news/index.htm
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пастафарианство

The church was originated in 2005 in the USA as an opposition to Kansas state, which suggested to put "Intelligent design" to the school program, instead of Evolutionism as main concept of the creation of the world

Originally Posted by Doomer

I'll try to bring some clarification to it
First of all it has nothing to with religion of any kind
The key part is this "insult religious feelings of the believers"
This is a quotation from ridiculous law Russian officials have passed, recently. The law basically allows people to do virtually anything as long as they can prove that it's related to their religious believes (punishments are severe: up to 500000 rubles in fines and up to 3 years in prison) - Закон о наказании за оскорбление чувств верующих подписан президентом |

This law has been passed as a reaction to "Pussy Riot" actions (the law is very stupid I'd say)
As consequences after passing the law many young Russian who oppose it started registering all kinds of religions and churches, so they can do whatever they want, because otherwise it would be "insulting religious feelings of the believers"
Here is an example of such "churches" -
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Lenta.ru: Из жизни: События: Церковь Летающего макаронного монстра зарегистрировалась в
http://www.rpcmp.ru/news/index.htm
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пастафарианство

The church was originated in 2005 in the USA as an opposition to Kansas state, which suggested to put "Intelligent design" to the school program, instead of Evolutionism as main concept of the creation of the world

I thought it was a brilliant form of protest, actually.

Originally Posted by Doomer

I'll try to bring some clarification to it
First of all it has nothing to with religion of any kind
The key part is this "insult religious feelings of the believers"
This is a quotation from ridiculous law Russian officials have passed, recently. The law basically allows people to do virtually anything as long as they can prove that it's related to their religious believes (punishments are severe: up to 500000 rubles in fines and up to 3 years in prison) - Закон о наказании за оскорбление чувств верующих подписан президентом |

This law has been passed as a reaction to "Pussy Riot" actions (the law is very stupid I'd say)
As consequences after passing the law many young Russian who oppose it started registering all kinds of religions and churches, so they can do whatever they want, because otherwise it would be "insulting religious feelings of the believers"
Here is an example of such "churches" -
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Lenta.ru: Из жизни: События: Церковь Летающего макаронного монстра зарегистрировалась в
http://www.rpcmp.ru/news/index.htm
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пастафарианство

The church was originated in 2005 in the USA as an opposition to Kansas state, which suggested to put "Intelligent design" to the school program, instead of Evolutionism as main concept of the creation of the world

But it's the least bad of many choices! The other choices are:

• Have only ONE approved state religion, which people need to conform to, like they did in the 1700s when many in Europe emigrated to the USA because they preferred some other religion or way of expressing their faith.
• Ban religious expressions altogether, like only very oppressive states do -- and it's not like people stop believing just because it's banned.

If you allow religious freedom, then you can't make judgements about which religions are OK and which aren't.
You have to allow Kopimism and Spagetthi Monster...... and Scientology, Jehovas Witnesses, Hare Krishna...... Otherwise where do you draw the line, and who is qualified to say which religions are approved and which aren't? The truth is, nobody can have any objective knowledge; the whole point is that it is about believing.

The Spagetthi church was invented by someone who wanted to make the point about how religion is illogical and deluded. Kopimism was invented by the Pirate Bay guys, I think. I agree that it is an insult against real religious views, but I don't think there is much that can be done about it, without proposing to pass judgement on people's faith.

I think that state and church mixed is a lethal cocktail. Let the people have their religion, but keep it out of government!

Originally Posted by Deborski

I think that state and church mixed is a lethal cocktail. Let the people have their religion, but keep it out of government!

Yes, all these problems happen when the state is trying to back up the church and vice versa
It only leads to "forcing you to believe" which is nonsense and hypocrisy

Originally Posted by Doomer

Yes, all these problems happen when the state is trying to back up the church and vice versa
It only leads to "forcing you to believe" which is nonsense and hypocrisy

It reminds me of the middle ages and "Divine Right." It seems like religious people in the US, and now Russia, want to return to that time.... and there are powerful and greedy people who see opportunities to be had, who are trying to make it happen. America has also been passing some stupid laws lately, giving religion more power. Teaching creationism in our schools, etc....

I used to be all in favour of state churches (like each of the Scandinavian countries have, and UK, to an extent).
Mainly because it's just a nationalistic thing and because they look after the actual churches; many of which are fantastic historical / art treasures. If the didn't, the churches would start to decline.

However I changed my mind after hearing some Americans describe the USA's strong views on separating church and state, and why they came to that conclusion. I thought their views were sounder at the end of the day, and stood up on their own merits. Mine were based on subjective feelings and hopes.

Plus, the faith of state churches quickly become either opressive, prescriptive and stifled, like happened a few hundred years ago.
Or they become populistic, trying to please everybody and sacrificing their own dogma, like today, when their policies are nothing but state policies, cloaked in supposed Christianity.

Plus, state churches only work when >99% have the same religions, and that's just not the case anywhere anymore.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I used to be all in favour of state churches (like each of the Scandinavian countries have, and UK, to an extent).
Mainly because it's just a nationalistic thing and because they look after the actual churches; many of which are fantastic historical / art treasures. If the didn't, the churches would start to decline.

However I changed my mind after hearing some Americans describe the USA's strong views on separating church and state, and why they came to that conclusion. I thought their views were sounder at the end of the day, and stood up on their own merits. Mine were based on subjective feelings and hopes.

Plus, the faith of state churches quickly become either opressive, prescriptive and stifled, like happened a few hundred years ago.
Or they become populistic, trying to please everybody and sacrificing their own dogma, like today, when their policies are nothing but state policies, cloaked in supposed Christianity.

Plus, state churches only work when >99% have the same religions, and that's just not the case anywhere anymore.

I really appreciate your candor and honesty, Hanna. I grew up in a strict, fundamentalist church where children died of things like appendicitis because it was considered a lack of faith in God to take them to a doctor. Amazingly, in this day and age, that STILL goes on! Many religions also practice "shunning" (which I read was made illegal in some Eastern European countries) - ie, the practice of disfellowshipping or excommunicating those who leave the fold. This is widely practiced by many fundamentalist sects, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and other "mainstream" religions. I myself was disfellowshipped when I left the church I grew up in. That amounted to losing my family and my entire social network all in one shocking blow. It is so devastating to be "shunned" that many people commit suicide. I came close to killing myself over it, too, but thankfully I held on and got to the place where I made new friends, who are closer to me than my own family was or is.

Churches have so many rules like this, that the idea of an official state religion scares the hell out of me. Once church and state are in bed together, they produce oppression, witch-hunts, and ignorance on a vast scale. We can see that clearly in many Muslim countries, where women are not allowed to drive cars or show their faces in public (among many other misogynist practices). I imagine those countries will reach enlightenment on their own and I am not in favor of invading them or trying to force them to change, since that inevitably results in an even stronger religious stance and more oppression.

Originally Posted by Deborski

Many religions also practice "shunning" (which I read was made illegal in some Eastern European countries) - ie, the practice of disfellowshipping or excommunicating those who leave the fold. This is widely practiced by many fundamentalist sects, as well as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and other "mainstream" religions. I myself was disfellowshipped when I left the church I grew up in. That amounted to losing my family and my entire social network all in one shocking blow.

Yikes! I'm truly sorry you were put through that kind of craziness, Deborski.

I would note, by the way, that the actual meaning of "disfellowshipping" or "excommunication" can vary from one church to another. In some cases, the "excommunicated" person is still welcome at church services, but simply can't partake of certain sacraments. For instance, excommunicated Catholics are encouraged to continue coming to Mass, but they're forbidden to take the Eucharist/Communion (unless and until they repent). However, their families and friends aren't required to "shun" them socially.

I can understand the rationale for saying to a "disobedient" member: "Well, you're not allowed to deliver the public scripture reading" or "You can't have your wedding in the temple" -- that's about the enforcement of the ritual standards that define the religion.

On the other hand, a church policy that "Anyone who talks to Deborski will get her apostate-cooties, and anyone who talks to someone who talked to Deborski is also at risk for cooties" is just insane and cultish.

(I was just thinking about how one would translate "excommunicate" into Russian -- and possibly you'd have to use different phrases depending on whether you were talking about Russian Orthodox Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc., because the actual, practical effects are different.)

LOL! I don't think the Russian Parliament will seriously listen to them but maybe it could be a way to organize stuff and get funds. Fighting the piracy laws will have to be done on a political level.
Also, I agree that a state religion would be a really bad idea because religion is way too complicated and everybody has their own ideas about that. As for me, I think there's a God and that the Christian Bible has a lot of really cool ideas about how to live together peacefully but I also know it was written by people who lived thousands of years ago and didn't know very much about science. So I don't ignore the fact that the Earth is probably 4.5 billion years old, there could be people on other planets, and there were tons of dinosaurs about 65 million years ago.

As for America, I think our country is just really confused. It wants separation of church and state but it wants Christianity to be the state religion. Snowden proved that Americans were being spied on but Obama said, last night, that Americans aren't being spied on. There's so much contractions that I mostly just don't want to listen.

Oh, and I totally do agree about the medical issue. Imo, anyone that refuses to take their kids to a hospital when they need it, should be charged with child abuse because that's just endangerment.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

(I was just thinking about how one would translate "excommunicate" into Russian -- and possibly you'd have to use different phrases depending on whether you were talking about Russian Orthodox Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc., because the actual, practical effects are different.)

It's отлучение

The wiki article

the Christian Bible has a lot of really cool ideas about how to live together peacefully but I also know it was written by people who lived thousands of years ago and didn't know very much about science

That's the fundamental phrase in there. It was written by people. But if you ask me who else could have written that but people it would be a really good question untill you think about that it was also adjusted by many people throughout the centuries. That is the scariest thing for me because I'm not ready to beleive in a book written by people and more than that adjusted to other people's needs after that. As I see it now this book is a great tool to manipulate people, to make them be like one big flock that thinks, acts the same, never questions and blindly follows everything it is said. What a great means for those who hold power. And I'm more than sure that those adjustments had only one purporse to match the needs of those in power.

Call me a heretic or apostate but that is the way I see things.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Yikes! I'm truly sorry you were put through that kind of craziness, Deborski.

I would note, by the way, that the actual meaning of "disfellowshipping" or "excommunication" can vary from one church to another. In some cases, the "excommunicated" person is still welcome at church services, but simply can't partake of certain sacraments. For instance, excommunicated Catholics are encouraged to continue coming to Mass, but they're forbidden to take the Eucharist/Communion (unless and until they repent). However, their families and friends aren't required to "shun" them socially.

I can understand the rationale for saying to a "disobedient" member: "Well, you're not allowed to deliver the public scripture reading" or "You can't have your wedding in the temple" -- that's about the enforcement of the ritual standards that define the religion.

On the other hand, a church policy that "Anyone who talks to Deborski will get her apostate-cooties, and anyone who talks to someone who talked to Deborski is also at risk for cooties" is just insane and cultish.

(I was just thinking about how one would translate "excommunicate" into Russian -- and possibly you'd have to use different phrases depending on whether you were talking about Russian Orthodox Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc., because the actual, practical effects are different.)

A lot of Churches, more than people actually realize, practice full-blown shunning and urge their members to "resist the temptation from Satan" to talk to their own families. This happened to a lot of people in my Church. Parents refused to talk to children who had "gone astray" and so forth. This article sums it up nicely:

The Gilmer Mirror - Extreme Shunning

I could understand not being invited to a funeral or a wedding due to conflicts over religion, but I would add that I find that very sad and hypocritical really. Especially since Christians claim to know all about "love." I do not see how shunning anyone or purposely not inviting them to an important event is a representation of love in any form.

Originally Posted by iCake

... a book written by people and more than that adjusted to other people's needs after that...

besides something has been lost due to translation to many languages and due to versions and adaptations (I've seen that exactly the same verse can be translated slightly different in the Russian text compared to that of a English version. It may well be suggested that the original script might differ as well).

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

I was just thinking about how one would translate "excommunicate" into Russian --

the verb would be "отлучать от церкви". But it's true that it's diffucult to translate this really close enough due to different practices. It's clear that excommunication in an Amish community results in something different if compared to excommunication in Russian Orthodox (consequences and impact on the person involved would be different).

On a similar note, it reminds me of a famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. In Russian texts it is usually said that he was "предан анафеме" (Greek word is used here, which means he was officially damned by the Russian Orthodox Church for his ideas on Christianity and large discrepancies of his life views with the Russian Church, definitetly he was not 'shunned', i don't know if 'shunning' is ever practiced in the Russian Orthodox Church, cos it seems to contradict to evangelical ideas).

In the wikipedia artical about Leo Tolstoy though the word 'excommunication' is used: After Anna Karenina, Tolstoy concentrated on Christian themes, and his later novels such as The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1886) and What Is to Be Done? develop a radical anarcho-pacifist Christian philosophy which led to his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901.

Originally Posted by alexsms

the verb would be "отлучать от церкви". But it's true that it's diffucult to translate this really close enough due to different practices. It's clear that excommunication in an Amish community results in something different if compared to excommunication in Russian Orthodox (consequences and impact on the person involved would be different).

On a similar note, it reminds me of a famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. In Russian texts it is usually said that he was "предан анафеме" (Greek word is used here, which means he was officially damned by the Russian Orthodox Church for his ideas on Christianity and large discrepancies of his life views with the Russian Church, definitetly he was not 'shunned', i don't know if 'shunning' is ever practiced in the Russian Orthodox Church, cos it seems to contradict to evangelical ideas).

In the wikipedia artical about Leo Tolstoy though the word 'excommunication' is used: After Anna Karenina, Tolstoy concentrated on Christian themes, and his later novels such as The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1886) and What Is to Be Done? develop a radical anarcho-pacifist Christian philosophy which led to his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901.

Historically, deep thinking and philosophy are not well tolerated by religions. Scientists too, have been excommunicated (and worse) over the centuries for their "radical" views. The Italian scientist, Galileo Galilei, who is now known as the "father of science," introduced the "heretical" idea that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than being the center of the universe. Of course, this implied that humans were not the center of the universe, and so naturally the Church had to persecute him, so he was imprisoned for the rest of his days and not allowed to write about his "radical" and "blasphemous" ideas any more.

Galileo was one of the lucky ones, since he was a man of stature and some personal wealth. Others, who did not have as much "clout" - were of course tortured in ways so unimaginable it defies belief today. The Christians of the middle ages took great pleasure in the screams of those they disemboweled, burned alive, ripped apart, and otherwise mutilated. The more people suffered, it was believed, the more God was pleased. And all of this was done at the behest of the State, which was subservient to the Church.

People who think official religion is a good idea are just naive, or ignorant of history. One of the reasons separation of church and state has been such an important core ideal in America, is because the people who founded our nation REMEMBERED the atrocities of the middle ages. For them, it was a FRESH memory and many of them fled Europe precisely because of the rampant persecution which was going on. The Church, once it had destroyed all conflicting belief systems, began to eat its own - people whose ideas were in conflict with the latest doctrine (and doctrines were always changing to suit the whims of the leaders). It was all about greed, of course. The Church and it's leaders confiscated the property of all the "heretics" and profited tremendously from persecuting all those so-called heathens. The founders of America wanted to ensure that our country would never experience the horror of an all-powerful religion, which persecutes people based on subjective beliefs, because they understood all too well what happens when a church is given authority over the people. Unfortunately, there is a big lobby in America now to tear down that wall of separation between church and state, and some even believe that America's founders were all christians, or that America was "founded as a christian nation" - which could not be further from the truth!

We were briefly mentioning "faith-healing" and churches which claim visiting a doctor is a lack of faith. Here is a current example of this:

Faith-healing couple Dale and Shannon Hickman sentenced to 6 years in jail | Mail Online

From the article:

A couple who prayed and rubbed olive oil on their dying son rather than calling 911 have been sentenced to more than six years behind bars.

Dale and Shannon Hickman, both 26, were convicted of manslaughter in September for the death of their son, David.

The baby boy was born two months early at his grandmother's home and died nine hours later when he had trouble breathing and turned blue.

On Monday, a judge told the couple, who are members of a controversial Oregon faith-healing church, that they could have done more to save their baby.

They cried and hugged after being sentenced to 75 months in prison and three years of probation.

Sentencing the couple at Clackamas County Court, Oregon, Judge Robert Herndon said: 'As the evidence unfolded and the witnesses testified, it became evident to me and certainly to the jury … that this death just simply did not need to occur.'

Originally Posted by Deborski

We were briefly mentioning "faith-healing" and churches which claim visiting a doctor is a lack of faith. Here is a current example of this:

Faith-healing couple Dale and Shannon Hickman sentenced to 6 years in jail | Mail Online

From the article:

A couple who prayed and rubbed olive oil on their dying son rather than calling 911 have been sentenced to more than six years behind bars.

Dale and Shannon Hickman, both 26, were convicted of manslaughter in September for the death of their son, David.

The baby boy was born two months early at his grandmother's home and died nine hours later when he had trouble breathing and turned blue.

On Monday, a judge told the couple, who are members of a controversial Oregon faith-healing church, that they could have done more to save their baby.

They cried and hugged after being sentenced to 75 months in prison and three years of probation.

Sentencing the couple at Clackamas County Court, Oregon, Judge Robert Herndon said: 'As the evidence unfolded and the witnesses testified, it became evident to me and certainly to the jury … that this death just simply did not need to occur.'

That's so horrible Unfortunately people tend to suffer from their delusuions and more than that inflict them on those who're around them